Brian Bradley and Tara Bradley and Gerard Rodgers, Brendan Rodgers & Judith O'Hagan trading as RGS Properties
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Master Harvey |
| Judgment Date | 16 December 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NIMaster 11 |
| Date | 16 December 2022 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NIMaster 11
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: 2022NIMaster11
ICOS No: 20/34521
Delivered: 16/12/22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
------
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
-----
BETWEEN:
BRIAN BRADLEY AND TARA BRADLEY
Plaintiffs
and
GERARD RODGERS, BRENDAN RODGERS, & JUDITH O’HAGAN
TRADING AS RGS PROPERTIES
Defendants
Master Harvey
Introduction
[1] There are three separate applications before the court for determination.
[2] Firstly, a summons dated 10th May 2021 in which the plaintiff’s Solicitor is
seeking an Order under Order 2 rule 1 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (NI)
1980 (“the 1980 Rules”) that the proceedings were validly served on the defendants,
or alternatively under Order 6 rule 7 of the 1980 Rules to extend the validity of the
writ.
[3] Secondly, the second defendant, further to a summons of 19th August 2021,
applies under Order 12 rule 8 of the 1980 Rules declaring the writ was not duly
served and/or setting the writ aside. Further, or in the alternative, an order pursuant
to Order 2 rule 2 of the 1980 Rules declaring that the writ is void by reason of
irregularity and/or setting the writ aside on a number of grounds set out in the
application:
(i) The writ was only intended for service within the jurisdiction.
(ii) The writ specifies 14 days for appearance which is time allowed for a
defendant living in NI.
(iii) The second defendant lives outside the jurisdiction in England.
(iv) The writ mis-states address for service as c/o Leicester City FC, King
Power Stadium, Filbert Way, Leicester LE2 7FL.
[4] Thirdly, the third defendant, further to a summons dated 29th February 2022,
applies under Order 12 rule 8 of the 1980 Rules declaring the writ was not validly
served.
[5] The plaintiffs were represented by Mr Donaghy, instructed by Madden and
Finucane solicitors. The first defendant did not take any part in the applications. The
second defendant was represented by Mr Girvan, instructed by Finucane Toner
Solicitors. The third defendant was represented by Mr Fletcher instructed by King
and Gowdy Solicitors.
[6] I am grateful to counsel for their skeleton arguments in advance and the
quality of their oral submissions. I am also grateful to Ms Day on behalf of the
plaintiffs for lodging a helpful hearing bundle and to all parties for lodging
voluminous bundles of authorities, citing a long list of cases, all of which I have
considered even if not expressly referred to in this judgment.
Background
[7] Proceedings were commenced by writ of summons issued on the 5th May
2020. The plaintiffs claim they agreed to lend money to the first defendant and that
representations were made by him that the second defendant would effectively
underwrite the agreement.
[8] The plaintiffs claim they were induced to lend the sum of £80,000 to the first
defendant on the 30th May 2008. The nature of this purported agreement was that the
plaintiffs would receive £80,000 back at the end of year 2, a further £100,000 at the
end of year 5 and in addition would receive £600 interest per month. The terms of
the agreement were signed by the plaintiffs and first defendant, Gerard Rodgers, on
behalf of RGS properties on 10th October 2008.
[9] In or around February 2010, the plaintiffs were contacted by the first
defendant indicating that due to the economic downturn the defendants were not
able to make the £80,000 payment at the end of year 2, but the plaintiffs would
continue to receive £600 per month until the £180,000 was paid at the end of year 5.
The plaintiffs agreed to this alteration to their agreement. The interest payments
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Norbev Limited v CSI Hungary KFT
...also involving the disputed service of a writ, Brian Bradley and Tara Bradley and Gerard Rodgers & Ors trading as Rodgers Properties [2022] NIMaster 11. In that case, there was significant delay as the plaintiffs’ solicitor firm was first instructed in October 2016. It was then almost four ......
-
Christina Cardy and Belfast Health & Social Care Trust and South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust and Bayer PLC
...recent case heard by this court, involving applications under the same rules as the present action, Bradley and Bradley v Rodgers & Ors [2022} NIMaster 11, at pages 10-20, I set out the applicable legal principles from the Rules and main authorities. I do not intend to rehearse all of them ......